(04-24-2014 07:07 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 10:29 PM)75src Wrote:  We were not quite as mobile at the time of the Civil War so regionalism was very important then. Most people then had never been outside their home state. There were some that headed west but western settlement tended to be in several bands across the county. Southerners would settle the western slave states such as Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas. Northerners would move to free states such as Iowa, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.

The people were most familiar with other regions and their people were probably the army officers. The officers would have friendships dating from West Point days and were posted in various parts of the nation. They regretted what would happen if there was a war.

(04-23-2014 02:25 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-21-2014 11:58 PM)75src Wrote:  An Englishman I know envied the unity of the United States. What was not mentioned was the terrible price the North and South had to pay during for the War for that unity.

Another, less sanguinary reason for our unity is Americans' historic and continuing geographic mobility. From the very beginning, Americans have tended to spread out from their place of birth to a ..
degree that was historically astonishing to Europeans. This habit of migration -- together with the sense of physical freedom it helps provide even among those who stay put -- has long been an underpinning of our national identity.

While perhaps most pronounced in the US, I suspect this is a common trait among New Worlders in general (a category which includes Australians in most respects), and certainly one of the characteristics that has distinguished -- mostly in a positive way -- the New World from the Old. It is inspiring to see western Europe catching up in this respect.

I think World War II (to a lesser extent, World War I) and the rise of the Interstate Highway System (to a slightly lesser extent, the mass production of the automobile) contributed to our sense of national unity and a decline of regionalism. World War II had a galvanizing effect on the country.

And my mother has told me about trips she made to Galveston in the early 1950's from St. Louis and a long vacation trips her mother made in the 1920's from St. Louis to Arkansas and other places.

A drive that today could theoretically be made in one day (Houston to St. Louis - 14 to 16 hours) in a pinch, could easily take 3 days and even more in the past.

I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

The general consensus is that the Civil War is what changed it to "THE"

(04-24-2014 04:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

The general consensus is that the Civil War is what changed it to "THE"

Maybe legally, but I was thinking of people's attitudes, and I doubt that a lot people went directly from thinking of themselves as Alabamans to thinking of themselves as Americans in April, 1865. I think it was a more gradual change, one that in some ways is not yet complete.

(04-24-2014 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

The general consensus is that the Civil War is what changed it to "THE"

Maybe legally, but I was thinking of people's attitudes, and I doubt that a lot people went directly from thinking of themselves as Alabamans to thinking of themselves as Americans in April, 1865. I think it was a more gradual change, one that in some ways is not yet complete.

Think that's right. As noted above, I think the biggest event that helped that along was World War 2.

(04-24-2014 06:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

The general consensus is that the Civil War is what changed it to "THE"

Maybe legally, but I was thinking of people's attitudes, and I doubt that a lot people went directly from thinking of themselves as Alabamans to thinking of themselves as Americans in April, 1865. I think it was a more gradual change, one that in some ways is not yet complete.

Think that's right. As noted above, I think the biggest event that helped that along was World War 2.

I don't know about subsequent wars, but a lot of the units in the CW were state related - the 5th Ohio, the 12th Mass.

(04-18-2014 12:14 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 06:36 PM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 02:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...I don't care what the others are arguing about, I am going to continue having fun with this.

Me, too!

Who would ever object to the Fighting Milquetoasts?

That reminds me of one school at which I officiate, whose field is emblazoned with the name 'Fighting Crusaders'. Every time I work there, someone on the crew points out how redundant the nickname is.

It's you, isn't it Geroge. :)

(04-24-2014 05:48 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...But certain figures (Lee and Jackson spring to mind) who were revered long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1950's and 1960's came along don't strike me as falling into the same category...

Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

(04-25-2014 09:28 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:48 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...But certain figures (Lee and Jackson spring to mind) who were revered long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1950's and 1960's came along don't strike me as falling into the same category...

Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

(04-24-2014 06:07 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 04:19 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 10:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't when we went from being the United STATES to being THE United States, but I suspect it happened sometime between Andrew Johnson and FDR.

Watching the Revolutionary War drama TURN last week, there was a scene in which some Continental soldiers decided the prudent action for them was to turn their coats, and in their declaration to their officers, they said something like "This is New Jersey. We serve the colony of Pennsylvania."

The general consensus is that the Civil War is what changed it to "THE"

Maybe legally, but I was thinking of people's attitudes, and I doubt that a lot people went directly from thinking of themselves as Alabamans to thinking of themselves as Americans in April, 1865. I think it was a more gradual change, one that in some ways is not yet complete.

Think that's right. As noted above, I think the biggest event that helped that along was World War 2.

I would say that mostly completed a process that began after the CW. (Though the south still has a strong separate identity that strikes many non-Southerners as odd, and Texas has a measure of state pride that strikes non-Texans as bizarre. My daughter says a pledge of allegiance to the *Texas* flag at school. What is that about!?!?!?)

Our turn of the century mini-Imperialist phase was important too.

I attended two HISD schools, one private high school and one private university.

My elementary school, Cynthia Ann Parker Elementary School, was named for an American settler that was kidnapped by native americans following the slaughter of her entire family. She fully assimilated, married a chief and was later "rescued" by Americans. She died miserable and depressed after many attempts to rejoin her tribe.

My junior high, TH Rogers Middle School, was named in honor of a man that was once principal of a Houston ISD high school. He was mistakenly shot dead by the Houston police.

My high school, St. Thomas High School, was named for St. Thomas Aquinas.

Then, of course, there is Rice, named for the man that bequeathed the original endowment.

Without commenting directly on the issue of naming schools for Confederate military officers, it does seem that schools are named for any number of reasons. If we put too many restrictions on who can have a school named after them I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off simply having schools without names.

(04-25-2014 10:19 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  I attended two HISD schools, one private high school and one private university.

My elementary school, Cynthia Ann Parker Elementary School, was named for an American settler that was kidnapped by native americans following the slaughter of her entire family. She fully assimilated, married a chief and was later "rescued" by Americans. She died miserable and depressed after many attempts to rejoin her tribe.

My junior high, TH Rogers Middle School, was named in honor of a man that was once principal of a Houston ISD high school. He was mistakenly shot dead by the Houston police.

My high school, St. Thomas High School, was named for St. Thomas Aquinas.

Then, of course, there is Rice, named for the man that bequeathed the original endowment.

Without commenting directly on the issue of naming schools for Confederate military officers, it does seem that schools are named for any number of reasons. If we put too many restrictions on who can have a school named after them I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off simply having schools without names.

cynthia was the mother of Quanah Parker. it is ironic that this thread has been so much about slavery, since after being "rescued", she wanted to return to her Comanche husband and sons, but was kept from them by her white family, many of whom I think there would be no objections to having a school named for them.

I went to Parker Elementary from 1961 to 1965. One memory I have is our class had been in the library during the JFK assassination. We were send back to our classroom and told about it. School was dismissed early on 11/22/63. I still have a 6th grade class photo with me right by Ken Bradshaw who later became a famous surfer. Parker had no mascot so there is no worry about having to change away from an Indian mascot. Quanah turned out to be a famous chief of the Comanche.

(04-25-2014 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 10:19 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  I attended two HISD schools, one private high school and one private university.

My elementary school, Cynthia Ann Parker Elementary School, was named for an American settler that was kidnapped by native americans following the slaughter of her entire family. She fully assimilated, married a chief and was later "rescued" by Americans. She died miserable and depressed after many attempts to rejoin her tribe.

My junior high, TH Rogers Middle School, was named in honor of a man that was once principal of a Houston ISD high school. He was mistakenly shot dead by the Houston police.

My high school, St. Thomas High School, was named for St. Thomas Aquinas.

Then, of course, there is Rice, named for the man that bequeathed the original endowment.

Without commenting directly on the issue of naming schools for Confederate military officers, it does seem that schools are named for any number of reasons. If we put too many restrictions on who can have a school named after them I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off simply having schools without names.

cynthia was the mother of Quanah Parker. it is ironic that this thread has been so much about slavery, since after being "rescued", she wanted to return to her Comanche husband and sons, but was kept from them by her white family, many of whom I think there would be no objections to having a school named for them.

(04-25-2014 10:19 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  I attended two HISD schools, one private high school and one private university.

My elementary school, Cynthia Ann Parker Elementary School, was named for an American settler that was kidnapped by native americans following the slaughter of her entire family. She fully assimilated, married a chief and was later "rescued" by Americans. She died miserable and depressed after many attempts to rejoin her tribe.

My junior high, TH Rogers Middle School, was named in honor of a man that was once principal of a Houston ISD high school. He was mistakenly shot dead by the Houston police.

My high school, St. Thomas High School, was named for St. Thomas Aquinas.

Then, of course, there is Rice, named for the man that bequeathed the original endowment.

Without commenting directly on the issue of naming schools for Confederate military officers, it does seem that schools are named for any number of reasons. If we put too many restrictions on who can have a school named after them I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off simply having schools without names.

Probably something closer to what one of my high schools was named - West Chester East. (Seriously. And no, the other high school in the district wasn't named West, though it was further west.) Or one of my elementary schools that was named Riverside - even though it wasn't near a river. Lots of geographic features would become the norm, though even some of them no doubt have loaded context.

So what is the list of qualifications for having a school named for you?

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:28 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:48 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...But certain figures (Lee and Jackson spring to mind) who were revered long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1950's and 1960's came along don't strike me as falling into the same category...

Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

(04-25-2014 10:19 AM)Steven Herce Wrote:  If we put too many restrictions on who can have a school named after them I have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off simply having schools without names.

New York City does OK in that regard.

(04-27-2014 10:52 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:58 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(04-25-2014 09:28 AM)Caelligh Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 05:48 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  ...But certain figures (Lee and Jackson spring to mind) who were revered long before the Civil Rights Era of the 1950's and 1960's came along don't strike me as falling into the same category...

Confederate figures such as Lee might have been excellent generals and excellent people in general, but their association with sustaining widespread slavery and oppression is too real for me to approve of naming a school, county, etc. after them. There are many other people who can be so honored. Certainly Lee's status as a reputedly principled man yet a defender of the South should be discussed in history classes and such, though. IMO, studying that contrast provides insight into mid-19th century America, the Civil War, and the Civil War's ongoing impacts. Historical figures need not be one-dimensional.

Another way to look at it, is that when one side has won, and ultimately changes are forced on people (even moral, necessary and needed changes), finding some way to allow those on the losing side to retain some dignity is not a bad idea. Lincoln's views on Reconstruction reflected that.

One way to preserve dignity, is to allow the losing side to keep their heroes (limited to those who were truly worthy of respect and admiration).

We all know who was on the right side of history (as well as morally).

After the loss of millions of lives, utter ruin of their economy, loss of fortunes, status, and in some cases property (not referring to human 'property', but homesteads etc.) . .. . .. . .

allowing the South some heroes (especially those deserving of respect) seems reasonable and conciliatory. (It's why I said LBJ would not have batted an eye over this stuff).

You've pointed out that you also don't believe buildings, schools, institutions should be named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, so you're not contradictory there.

But most who might object to a Robert E. Lee High School would not want to remove George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's name in every instance where they removed Lee's)

If association with injustice, no matter the degree of the association, is an issue, we should also argue for the destruction of the pyramids.

Schools named shortly after war see would be one thing. But 100 years is a long time; seems a stretch Houston seeing itself as the losing side in need of the dignity of its heroes. That's how you see an all-white high school named "Robert E. Lee" in 1962? As a grab at self-respect by the conquered of a 100-year-old war?

This is smack in the middle of a 15-year period when desegregation was the law of the land, but HISD was perpetrating a "palpable sham and subterfuge designed only to accomplish further evasion and delay" per federal judge Ben Connally, in a Texas that still outlawed marriage between blacks and whites.

The segregationists ALSO (and correctly) lost, too. I think there is benefit to having respected generals (like Lee) retain some degree of respect, while clearly refusing to honor people like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

Well, to note just a few things about Jefferson, he was:

Quote:AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Though perhaps minor contributions to mankind in comparison to Lee and other generals, they are at least somewhat distinctive.

PS: I didn't provide a cite for the above quotation, on the theory that the people who are reading this discussion will probably recognize the source right away. But I an provide the citation if anyone is interested.

(04-28-2014 09:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-28-2014 08:00 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  The difference between Lee, and say, Thomas Jefferson, who effectively had concubines in his slave holdings, is non-existent, and on most levels I would favor Lee.

Well, to note just a few things about Jefferson, he was:

Quote:AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA

Though perhaps minor contributions to mankind in comparison to Lee and other generals, they are at least somewhat distinctive.

PS: I didn't provide a cite for the above quotation, on the theory that the people who are reading this discussion will probably recognize the source right away. But I an provide the citation if anyone is interested.

Those are the areas that obviously favor Jefferson, I'm not neglecting that. My point is that the objections to Lee as a slaveholder would apply more so to Jefferson IMHO.

I don't advocate stripping Jefferson of any honors either. The concept that any honor, respect, good that a man may deserve or have done, is inadequate to overcome the fact that he was a beneficiary of an immoral system applies no less to Jefferson than Lee, who evidently did not take sexual liberties with his workers.

You'll note how prominently Virginia is mentioned in Jefferson's epitapth. Is there any question where Jefferson would've ended up in 1861?

(04-28-2014 10:20 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  You'll note how prominently Virginia is mentioned in Jefferson's epitapth. Is there any question where Jefferson would've ended up in 1861?

Yes, I think there is a great deal of doubt about which side Jefferson would have chosen. For all his many faults and hypocrisies on the issue of slavery, Jefferson at least (at times) recognized it as the violation of natural law. That view was largely replaced by the Civil War. That view had largely disappeared by the Civil War era. Would he really have rebelled in support of an institution he detested (even if he was too weak to follow through on his convictions)? While I don't go so far to suggest that he would have supported the Union (it would have been personally ruinous and he was certainly a strong proponent of a robust view of state's rights), I don't think the question is as easy one.